Archive for category Facts
“Knowledge is Power”
The Ethics of Public Drinking Water Fluoridation
Ethical Considerations Regarding
Public Drinking Water Fluoridation.
The ethical argument is clear. The canons of medical ethics require that a drug or procedure, before administration, must have been approved by an appropriate body (usually, in North America, by Health Canada or the Federal Drug Administration in the USA) for its specific use and must be administered under supervision of a qualified professional (physician or dentist in this context).
The recipient must have been informed of the reason for the drug or procedure, the expected benefits and possible side effects and risks.
The recipient must have been informed by a qualified professional and must have been able to question said professional and must have given consent for taking the drug or procedure.
The recipient must have the choice of stopping the administration at will. The effects of the drug or procedure on the individual must be monitored by a qualified professional and such information must be available to the recipient.
The administration must be controlled with respect to dose or intensity and safety.
Clearly the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies does not meet any of these requirements.
Author: Dr. James Beck
* Chapter 1 of The Case Against Fluoride.
* The Canadian Medical Association Code of Ethics
* The Canadian Dental Association Code of Ethics.
Newly released documentary featuring
several Canadian safe water advocates!
Topics covered include: the product, hydrofluorosilicic acid; the ethics of using a population to experiment on with untested chemicals; the suppression of science; and the politics surrounding the practice of artificially fluoridating the drinking water supply.
It takes only three teaspoons of 0.7 mg/l fluoridated tap water to meet the bureaucracies’ falsely labelled “Adequate Intake” of fluoride of 0.01 mg per day. Their equally falsely labelled “Adequate Intake” number used to be higher, I think it was 0.25 mg/day – but the NRC report coming after Dr. Hardy Limeback’s research, the admission from the Institute of Medicine that fluoride is NOT a nutrient and the CDC announcing that fluoride’s action is topical not systemic, had forced it way down.
The official WHO member resolution on infant feeding does not mention fluoridated water or fluoride supplements at all. It says infants should be breastfed as long as both mother and infant like, and weaning foods introduced by nine months of age should be fresh and nutrient-rich (does not say “fluoride-rich”). Despite Health Canada’s claim that it complies with WHO/UNICEF directives in recommending fluoridation, there is no evidence that these agencies formally recommend increased fluoride intake at all for infants.
Regarding pharmaceutical fluoride drops and pills: Health Canada now states that infants should not be supplemented. The Canadian Dental Association now says infants should not be supplemented. The Canadian Paediatric Society now says infants should not be supplemented. Their current recommendations are reversals of their previous positions of ordering fluoride be given to breastfed babies in escalating amounts from birth onward.
Obviously, their fraudulent “Adequate Intake” (AI) of 0.01 mg/day is sufficient. But sufficient for what? Teeth and bones? Then why fluoridate water if mother’s milk and ambient background levels in most tap water already provide this AI for teeth and bones?
Health Canada says fluoridated water is safe for making infant formula and does not overdose them. Really? Fluoride dose from water 100x higher than their sham AI is not overdose? Odd how they recommend as safe for infants an intake of supplementary, non-nutrient fluoride that is 100x higher than any AI for any essential nutrient, or even for water itself, and goes against their own recommendation that infants should not be supplemented with any fluoride at all.
Health Canada says everyone can drink fluoridated water and there is no credible evidence of any health effect at 0.7 mg/L. Well, that’s only true if babies are limited to three teaspoons of water a day. Health Canada’s appalling lack of basic arithmetic skills highlights the fact that: “According to Health Canada’s own recommendations, babies exceed the AI when they get more than a tablespoon of fluoridated tap water a day.”
Therefore this agency should not be relied upon by our municipal councils for credible advice on water fluoridation providing a safe intake for formula fed infants.
“If a public water supply is fluoridated, the following notice shall be posted in the water system’s consumer confidence report: ‘Your public water supply is fluoridated. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, if your child under the age of 6 months is exclusively consuming infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated water, there may be an increased chance of dental fluorosis. Consult your child’s health care provider for more information.'”
Dental fluorosis is the visible sign of fluoride poisoning. “Like bones, a child’s teeth are alive and growing. Fluorosis is the result of fluoride rearranging the crystalline structure of a tooth’s enamel as it is still growing. It is evidence of fluoride’s potency and ability to cause physiologic changes within the body, and raises concerns about similar damage that may be occurring in the bones.” Environmental Working Group March 2006
City council is charged with the responsibility of ensuring our drinking water is safe for EVERYONE! Will they vote to cease artificial water fluoridation to protect our formula fed infants?
Windsor Utilities Commission (WUC) is the last water supplier in all of Essex County to fluoridate the municipal drinking water supply. Communities across Ontario and Canada have been ceasing fluoridation, which is great news for our health and the health of our environment. Canada is now less than 40% artificially fluoridated.
Fluoride Free Windsor has documented on video some very important facts that have come to light during our Safe Water Campaign.
We urge all WUC customers to watch these videos and forward them to their fellow neighbours, friends and families. These are facts that, once widely known, can help us achieve our goal of having safe water for all (not just those that can afford expensive filter systems and bottled water). After viewing, be sure to write to Windsor Council and let them know you want safe water. Council needs a reason to go against the recommendation of health authorities (who are paid and mandated to endorse this practice) by hearing from the folks that vote and elect them into office!
What is the product used to fluoridate our water?
Is it the pharmaceutical grade fluoride found in our dentists’ office? Is it naturally occurring calcium fluoride that fluoride lobbyists allude to? Windsor Utilities Commission administration confirmed that the product, hydrofluorosilicic acid, used to fluoridate our drinking water is industrial waste from the phosphate fertilizer industry.
Has this product been tested for safety?
The license to operate a water system states that chemicals used must meet standard NSF60, which requires that toxicological safety studies be conducted on all chemicals. But these haven’t been done. So, not only are we drinking hazardous waste, but we’re drinking hazardous waste that has never been tested for safety to ingest! No Safety studies, means no compliance with legislation and no legal product with which to fluoridate. No Means No.
Wouldn’t the precautionary principle be prudent?
Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Heimann, admits that in the absence of SAFETY STUDIES, precaution should be taken. Tecumseh council wanted to see the toxicological safety studies on hydrofluorosilicic acid, but they don’t exist and so the precautionary principle should be applied. If in doubt, leave it out.
Windsor council will be receiving recommendations to cease artificial water fluoridation from Windsor Essex County Environment Committee, Windsor Utilities Commission, Great Lakes United, Council of Canadians, Town of Tecumseh, Fluoride Free Windsor, CAW Environment Committee and hopefully from YOU, too! These reports and recommendations will find their way to the council agenda in about 60 days. It would be ideal if those interested in having safe water would email council with their concerns and then show up to the meeting, fill the council chambers, support the safe water delegates and champion for safe municipal drinking water free of unnecessary, untested, unsafe industrial waste chemicals!!
“My ignorance of fluoride in the beginning was a matter of chance. If you ignore this evidence today, it will be a matter of choice. Good luck with doing the right thing.” Dr. Phyllis J. Mullenix, neuro-scientist.
Before we get to the outcome of the recent Windsor Utilities Commission meeting let’s take a look at the local media coverage. Fluoride Free Windsor and local Safe Water Advocates want to thank our media sources for doing such an amazing job of helping Windsor/Essex residents become informed about the facts of artificial water fluoridation!
February 29, 2012 Utilities Commission Recommends City Stop Fluoridating Water
February 27, 2012 ‘More Doctors Smoke Camels’
February 18, 2012 Researchers Explore Fluoride Debate
February 18, 2012 Fluoride Still Stirring Debate
February 10, 2012 Heather Gingerich on Ending Fluoridation of Drinking Water
February 7, 2012 Town Council Passes Moratorium on Water Fluoridation
December 2, 2011 City Urged to Consider Fluoride Ban
November 2, 2011 Group Wants Fluoride Removed
Fluoride Free Windsor, Council of Canadians, Canadian Medical Geology Association, a Registered Nurse and several local residents presented to the Windsor Utilities Commission (WUC) board members at a special fluoridation meeting held on Wednesday, February 29, 2012 to make the case for SAFE WATER.
The outcome of the meeting was a motion made by Councillor Dilkens and seconded by Councillor Marra to recommend that the City of Windsor cease fluoridation. All members of the commission, except for Councillor Sleiman, voted in favour of the motion. We wish to extend a huge thanks to Mr. Dilkens and Mr. Marra, as well as the commissioners, for voting in favour of SAFE WATER. For more videos of delegates’ presentations visit the Fluoride Free Windsor YouTube channel.
Windsor Utilities Commission has a mandate to supply SAFE WATER
A little background on this water supplier – they have state of the art technology using both ozonation and infra-red to clean the water (not chlorine!) and remove any pathogens – this is good because we get our drinking water from the Detroit River which, as most of you reading this will know, isn’t so clean! Unfortunately, after WUC does such a fantastic job of cleaning the water they add an agent that is classified as hazardous waste – hydrofluorosilicic acid – straight from the smoke stacks of the phosphate fertilizer industry, untreated, tanked and shipped to our municipality under the guise of ‘tooth medicine’. See here confirmation from WUC’s Chief Operating Officer, John Stuart, that the water fluoridation product is a waste product of the phosphate fertilizer industry:
WUC Fluoridation Reports
A May 23, 2006 WUC fluoridation report for City of Windsor Council states “It should be noted that The Windsor Utilities Commission reduced the level of fluoride from 1.2 mg/l to 0.65 mg/l several years ago.” which begs the question: Does that mean that for several decades WUC customers got twice the concentration of fluoride that they tell us is safe today? Will we be told in the future that the ‘safe’ limit is lower still, as fluoride lobbyists find it more and more difficult to disregard the mounting evidence that fluoride accumulates in our bodies and in our environment, causing harm?
In the WUC Fluoridation report dated February 17, 2012 (completed for the purposes of this special fluoridation meeting) it states:
“It is of interest that on January 7, 2011 The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommended dropping the fluoride concentration from their current recommended range of 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams per litre to 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per litre. This updated recommendation was based on recent EPA and HHS scientific assessments to balance the benefits of preventing tooth decay while limiting any unwanted health effects.“
UNWANTED HEALTH EFFECTS? But our Medical Officer of Health and local dentists keep saying there are NO unwanted health effects. The WUC report quotes the Health Canada (2007) review that indicates “fluoride in drinking water is unlikely to cause adverse health effects…” and “fluoride in drinking water is unlikely to be the cause of moderate dental fluorosis…” (does that mean it is likely to be the cause of mild dental fluorosis?) As parents trying our best to protect our children from unnecessary chemicals, should we be reassured with Health Canada’s ‘unlikely to cause harm’ fluoridation endorsement? Can they back up this endorsement with safety studies?
Fluoride lobbyists admit that fluoride is harmful and can only claim it is ‘safe and effective’ at optimal levels. The problem is, that ‘optimal level’ has continued to be decreased ever since the water fluoridation experiments began. Why is that? For one thing, the science doesn’t support the ‘safe and effective’ propaganda. And so as decades pass and we’re in our third generation, of test subjects ingesting fluoride, we see more and more signs of fluoride toxicity – and so instead of our health authorities being PROTECTIVE and taking PRECAUTION we see them being reactive to mounting evidence of harm and lowering the fluoride limit in our drinking water time and again all while desperately defending this policy in an attempt to retain credibility. It seems that the opposite is happening. By defending worn-out policy, health and dental authorities are losing credibility when they do not take a precautionary stance that is protective of all.
Residents should be allowed to monitor their own fluoride intake while depending on the tap water for bathing, cooking and drinking. Public health is NOT monitoring our fluoride intake from all exposures nor have our communities been assessed to determine what our fluoride intake is from all available sources. Some people are sensitive to fluoride, some people need to avoid it because they suffer from a suppressed thyroid or because they have a compromised immune system. Current water fluoridation concentrations are not protective of formula fed infants or aquatic species and claims of safety at any level is questionable, as we’ll soon see.
What does the Precautionary Principle say?
The principle requires that we consider the possible benefits, the possible harms and whether there are feasible alternatives for producing the benefit. For fluoride, the benefit is slight if any and does not pertain to a threat to public health. Possible harm is great and almost certain for some harm like dental fluorosis and thyroid suppression. There are harmless and accessible alternatives for attaining the desired benefit. And so, fluoride does not pass the test of the precautionary principle.
Anyone who believes that ingesting fluoride is contributing to their dental health can simply ingest more of the readily available foods that contain fluoride while leaving our municipal drinking water free of it so that it is as safe as possible. See here the USDA National Fluoride Database of Selected Beverages and Foods. There is no shortage of access to fluoride but avoiding it is near impossible when it is in our tap water. For those interested in SAFE methods of preventing dental caries see these Alternatives to Fluoride.
How SAFE is hydrofluorosilicic acid? What measures exist to ensure it is SAFE for us to ingest every day of our lives?
The Safe Drinking Water Act (2002) is clear that water systems must meet licensing requirements; the license (Schedule B, Section 14.0) requires that chemicals used meet the Standard NSF60. This standard provides criteria to conduct a toxicological risk assessment. This criteria was confirmed by WUC Chief Operating Officer, John Stuart, in the report dated February 17, 2012 submitted to commissioners for the purposes of the fluoridation meeting.
“Standard 60 was developed to establish minimum requirements for the control of potential human health effects from products added directly to water during its treatment, storage and distribution. The standard requires a full information disclosure of each chemical ingredient in a product. It also requires a toxicology review to determine that the product is safe at its maximum use level and to evaluate potential contaminants in the product…A toxicology evaluation of test results is required to determine if any contaminant concentrations have the potential to cause adverse health effects.”
The legislation is in place for safety criteria. So why are there no safety studies?
See here video coverage for the WUC meeting where administration admits no toxicological safety studies have been completed (in the 60 years of forcing this hazardous waste on us!). The video demonstrates how health authorities know full well that these safety studies do not exist and yet continue to promote the policy as ‘safe and effective’.
There is no scientific consensus that ingesting hydrofluorosilicic acid is safe. There are no safety studies to prove it is safe. More and more municipalities are becoming aware of this glaring oversight and are ending the fluoridation experiment. Let your Windsor, Tecumseh and Lasalle councillors know that you want them to follow the Windsor Utilities Commission’s recommendation to cease artificial water fluoridation to make our municipal drinking water supply as SAFE as possible. And allow us to enjoy Fluoride Free Water like the rest of Essex County, most of Canada and most of the World.
Fluoride lobbyists claim that ingesting fluoride is safe and that no credible evidence exists to show that it is harmful. They also admit that the actual product, hydrofluorosilicic acid, we’re ingesting has never undergone safety tests. No tests to prove safety and no credible evidence to show harm (if you don’t look, you can’t see!). This kind of double-speak is quite common in the fluoride lobbying literature.
However, the law is clear – chemicals added to our water supply MUST meet standards and those standards include toxicological testing. So decades old public policy and endorsements aside, would the claim that ingesting hydrofluorosilicic acid is safe, hold up in a court of law? This is the question Windsor, Tecumseh and Lasalle councillors need to ask themselves when they finally decide yay or nay for continuing to mass medicate residents without their informed consent.
Who is liable?
The Province of Ontario has provided municipal councillors with a document titled Taking Care of Your Drinking Water: A Guide for Members of Municipal Councils. This guide details how on January 1, 2013 a Standard of Care comes into effect that puts an unprecedented duty of care on municipal councillors. The guide shows an ‘ideal water treatment model’ and no fluoridation step is shown. This guide states: “It’s Your Duty. The Safe Drinking Water Act, 2002, includes a statutory standard of care for individuals who have oversight responsibilities for municipal drinking water systems that can extend to municipal councillors as of January 1, 2013. There are legal consequences for negligence, including possible fines or imprisonment.”
With a warning like that coming from the Province, councillors must be fully certain that the product they’ve chosen to mass medicate their constituents with is, indeed, safe and effective, as the fluoride proponents claim. Because those fluoride lobbyists will not shield municipalities from legal liability.
Fluoride Free Windsor members have been doing their best to arm councillors with credible fluoridation information, including providing them with the Water Fluoridation Expert list, so councillors will have several professionals to turn to for the truth about the marketing claims that fluoride is safe and effective. These experts can and will help councillors make informed decisions that are protective of all constituents and adhere to environmental legislation.
No Means No
Following is a presentation titled NO MEANS NO that very appropriately highlights the fraudulent NSF certification that municipal governments are relying on as the safety standard for hydrofluorosilicic acid. Thank you to Carole Clinch of Citizens for Safe Water.
Virgil, Aeneid Roman epic poet (70 BCE – 19 BCE)
Council members rely on the input of experts when making policy decisions because they must make decisions on a variety of issues and topics – all of which they can’t possibly be fully experts on. They must depend on outside sources to make informed decisions, they must do their due diligence to seek out these sources and they must use their critical thinking skills to apply the information when forming policy.
With respect to fluoridation, our council relied on the endorsement of the public health unit. Bill Marra, council member and chair of the Windsor Utilities Commission wrote “Fluoride was first introduced into the Windsor water supply at the request of the Public Health Unit in 1953.”
Are health unit personnel credible experts?
The current voice of the Public Health Unit comes from the Medical Officer, Dr. Heimann who we are aware has made FALSE and MISLEADING statements with respect to fluoridation. Can we blame Dr. Heimann for being misinformed or unaware of the facts, science or law with respect to artificial water fluoridation? – after all, he is not a fluoride expert. Having spent a significant part of his career in Public Health (scroll down), he may be an expert of the policy that endorses fluoridation. As the Medical Officer of Health part of his job is to promote fluoridation as safe and effective. However, Health Canada does not regulate hydrofluorosilicic acid nor are they able to provide a toxicological study that would prove the chemicals being added to our water are, in fact, safe for us to ingest every day of our lives. Indeed, no government or health authority on either side of the border has conducted a legitimate toxicological test nor conducted clinical trials to determine that ingesting hydrofluorosilicic acid is safe.
Is there a difference between being an expert on fluoride and being an expert on endorsing fluoridation?
Most proponents of artificial water fluoridation imply that the whole of the academic community supports fluoridation, but this is definitely not the case. There are many academics who have conducted, and continue to conduct, studies examining the effects of fluoride exposure, and these academics loudly warn of the hazards of fluoridation. A recognizable body of these folks would be the 12 selected scientists who were assembled by the National Academy of Sciences to review the existing literature on fluoride safety. After more than three years of painstaking analysis, they produced the 2006 NAS report, Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water. Their report was very skeptical of the claims that fluoridation is both ‘safe and effective’. These academics (one of which whom we’ve exchanged much correspondence with) warned of serious issues with fluoride safety, citing concerns about fluoride’s links to bone and soft tissue cancers, hypothyroidism, Alzheimer-like symptoms, and IQ deficits just to mention the short list. Their report urged that more research get underway quickly to closely explore all of those apparent risks. Often we hear fluoridation proponents give the impression that water fluoridation is accomplished using a natural product (calcium fluoride) but again, the academic community can help clarify that Windsor, Tecumseh and Lasalle residents are being ‘medicated’ with a toxic industrial waste by-product called hydrofluorosilicic acid.
So what does constitute an EXPERT?
The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines expert as follows:
: having, involving, or displaying special skill or knowledge derived from training or experience
With respect to fluoridation the field of expertise belongs to those who have examined the biological effects of swallowing fluoride.
Whose area of expertise includes that study? No Faculty of Dentistry has in its curriculum the study of biological effects of ingested fluoride. Many dentists have independently sought that knowledge, and several have become pre-eminent authorities on the effects of fluoride. Those dentists would be ‘experts in this field’.
But dentists are required to promote the use of fluoride and support fluoridation as safe and effective, to do otherwise puts them at risk of being reported to the Royal College of Dental Surgeons. So while they are not trained about the effects of ingesting fluoride, and while they are not experts in the field of fluoridation they are required to promote it all the same and are discouraged from speaking against it should they have concerns about the supposed safety and effectiveness. Indeed, when we’ve asked dentists who have spoken publically in favour of water fluoridation to speak to the safety and effectiveness of the fluoride product, hydrofluorosilicic acid, used in the practice they promote, they are unable to do so and often will direct us to the water supplier: who fluoridates at the instruction of council, who fluoridates at the endorsement of these folks that can’t speak to the safety and effectives of the actual product being used in the practice they endorse! (A vicious circle of ‘passing the buck’ it seems)
Interestingly, Dr. Peter Cooney, Health Canada’s Chief Dental Officer, when questioned by Thunder Bay council (who went on to reject water fluoridation) had to admit that never fluoridated Vancouver has fewer dental caries than Toronto who has been fluoridating their water supply for over 30 years. However, he is not a fluoride expert either, yet continues to promote fluoridation as safe and effective as is required by his position as Chief Dental Officer.
Can we agree that we expect our policy makers to seek the input of experts that have demonstrated ‘special skill or knowledge’ in the field of swallowing fluoride when making the decision to mass medicate the population with this industrial by-product?
And can we agree that our policy makers should seek input from experts that are allowed to speak to their training and experience with respect to fluoride; rather than rely on experts that are instructed to disregard their experience or opinions in favour of policy endorsements as mandated by their position/access to income, or rely on experts that don’t have any special skill, knowledge, training or experience with respect to ingesting fluoride?
Do such fluoride and fluoridation experts with special skill, knowledge, training and experience exist?
And if they do exist, are they accessible to council members so that their knowledge and expertise may be applied to policy making with respect to artificial water fluoridation?
We’re pleased to inform that indeed, these experts not only exist, but they’re willing and able to assist Windsor, Tecumseh and Lasalle council members. We’ve been in contact with them, they’ve provided their phone numbers, their email addresses, their Skype addresses, their credentials – they are waiting for their expert advice to be courted…
So who are they, you’re wondering? They are scientists that have published peer-reviewed papers on fluoride and fluoridation, they are researchers, they are doctors, they are dentists, they are professors, they are lawyers…they have all the expected credentials and education one would hope to find in an expert but they have so much more than that!
They have courage to speak out about the truth in opposition to heavily funded and desperately defended worn-out policy. They have the integrity to offer their expertise for free and ask only for their travel costs to be covered should their appearances be requested. They have veracity even when it has hurt their professional career potential. Windsor, Tecumseh and Lasalle council members are very fortunate to have such a class of individuals to seek the advice and expertise of – now all they need to do is pick up the phone or send an email and ask any and all questions with respect to the health authority claims that fluoridation is safe and effective or to ask questions about the water supply system license and the Ministry of Environment, or to inquire about the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Fluoridation Act or any other pertinent legislation, or to learn about all the recent studies linking fluoride to lowered IQ, increased lead levels in blood and cancer….or any imaginable questions with respect to the politics, science, law and practice of artificial water fluoridation.
While we will not be posting the personal contact information of these professionals who were kind enough to make themselves and their expertise available to our area policy makers, we will share with you their names and a link to but one place on the internet where you can see how they qualify as fluoridation experts. We would encourage you to search out other articles, videos and offerings from this esteemed group:
UPDATE: We have a new expert, willing to help our council members, to add to our list, Dr. David Kennedy
If you are a Windsor, Tecumseh or Lasalle policy maker reading this and have not received a list of these experts please contact us at email@example.com and we’ll be happy to forward you the contact information and credentials for this list of distinguished professionals.